## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT L AR RY D. M AYNAR D,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 05- 5063 BO BBY BO ON E,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D . C . N O . C V - 01- 79- C V E - SA J) F re d R a n d o lp h L yn n , T u lsa , O k lah o m a fo r P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t. J ayL . Schni eder

j an, A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al ( W . A . D r ew E dm onds on, A t t or neyG ener al , w i t h hi m on t he br i ef) , O ffi ce of t he A t t or neyG ener al of O kl ahoma, O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma forR es pondent - A ppel l ee. B efo re LU CE RO , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge. L a rryD . M a yn a rd is c u rre n tlyse rv in g a life se n ten c e in O k lah o m a sta te pr i s on ar i s i ng fr om a cr i m e thatoccurr ed i n 1988. H e w as char ged w i th s hoot i ng w i t h i nt entt o ki l l , and af t era l engthyr ound of compet encydet erm i nat i ons , anT hi s char ge w as s ubs equent l yamended t o s hoot i ng w i th i nt entt o ki l l aft er 1 t w o o r m ore fel on i es. -2- O k laho m a juryd eterm ined h e w as c o m p eten t t o stan d tr ial . B efo re tri al, M ay n ard di s m i s s ed hi s appoi nt ed couns el and moved t o pr ocee d pr o s e. T he courtgr ant ed t hi s r eques t , and M aynar d w as convi ct ed of the cha r ged cr i m e. H i s convi ct i on w a s la ter a ffirm e d o n a p p e a l. I n 2001, he cha l l enged the convi ct i on i n fede r al court , r ai s i ng num er ous cl ai m s pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the pet i t i on on t he m er i t s . M aynar d chal l enges t he dec i s i on on t w o gr ounds : ( 1) he w as not c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l; a n d (2 ) h e d id n o t v a lid ly w a iv e h is ri g h t to c o u n s e l. W e A F F I R M. I . Backg r ound O n M a rc h 4 , 1 9 8 8 , M a yn a rd sh o t Ja m e s C a ss w h ile M a yn a rd w a s s itt in g in hi s carout s i de a l ounge i n Paw hus ka, O kl ahoma. A ft era s hor ti nves t i gat i on, M a yn a rd w a s c h a rg e d in O sa g e C o u n ty , O k lah o m a fo r sh o o tin g w ith in ten t to k ill . 1 M a yn a r d fa c e d c h a r g e s i n a n u n r e l a t e d c r i m i n a l m a t t e ri n D e l a w a r e C o u n t y, O k laho m a a t th e ti m e o f h is arrest. A s a re su lto f q u esti o n s ab o u t M ay n ard ’s co m p eten cyin tho se p roc ee d ing s, a D elaw are C o u n tyjuryfo u n d M ay n ard in c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial. H e w a s c o m m itt e d to th e c a re o f a n O k lah o m a sta te hos pi t al . B as ed on the D el aw ar e C ountyfi ndi ng of i ncompet ence , t he O s age-3-

C ount ycourts t ay ed pr ocee di ngs i n i t s cas e and di r ect ed the hos pi t al t o cont i nue m o n ito ri n g M a yn a rd ’s c o n d itio n . F o r th e n ex t y ea r, d o ctors fo u n d M ay n ard inco m p eten t t o stan d tr ial . In M ar ch 1989, how ever , hos pi t al offi ci al s concl uded M aynar d’ s condi t i on had i m pr oved t o t he poi nthe w as compet entt o s t and tr i al . A s econd c om pet encytr i al i n D el aw ar e C ount yw as hel d, and a j ur yfound M aynar d coul d s t and tr i al . T he O s age Count yD i s t r i ctA t t or neyr ecomm ence d pr ocee di ngs i n Sept ember1989 on t he cr i m i nal char ge pendi ng t her e. M aynar d r eques t ed a c om pet encyhear i ng i n the O s age Count ycas e. T he cour tconvene d a j ur y , and on Sept ember4, 1990, M aynar d w as found compet ent t o s t and tr i al . T r i al w as s etforM ar ch 19, 1991. Pr i ort o t r i al , di s s at i s fi ed byhi s couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on, M aynar d m oved t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o be r epr es ent ed bycouns el s o he coul d pr ocee d pr o s e. T he cour thel d a hea r i ng on M ar ch 18, 1991, and then gr ant ed M aynar d’ s m ot i on and a llo w e d h im to p ro c e e d w ith o u t r e p re s e n ta tio n . F o llo w in g a fo u r-d a ytrial, a ju ryfo u n d M a yn a rd g u iltyo f sh o o tin g w ith inten t t o k il l and rec o m m en d ed n inety -nin e y ea rs i m p ri so n m en t. M ay n ard a p p e a l e d t h e v e r d i c t , b u tb e c a u s e o f v a r i o u s p r o c e d u r a l d i ffi c u l t i e s , th e Ok l a h o ma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( O C C A ) di d noti s s ue an opi ni on i n the ca s e forover ei ghty ear s . Fi nal l y , i n M ay1999, the O C C A vaca t ed the convi ct i on on t he gr ound t hatt he O s age Count ycourthad i ns truct ed the j uryt o appl yan-4-

un con st i tuti on al l yhigh bu rden of proof t o est abli sh i nco m petency . B ecause so m u c h tim e h a d p a ss e d , the O C C A re m a n d e d th e c a se to th e trial c o u rt to det erm i ne w hethera r etr os pect i ve hea r i ng underthe pr opercons t i tut i onal s t andar d w as fea s i bl e. T h e tr ial co u rt co n clud ed that a retrosp ec ti v e h ea ri n g w as fea sible. In D e c e m b e r, 1 9 9 9 , a s e c o n d ju ryc o n c lu d e d th a t M a yn a rd h a d b e e n c o m p e ten t to stan d tr ial in 1 9 9 1 . O n d ir ec t app ea l i n 2 0 0 0 , the O C C A affirm ed the ju ry ’s d eterm ination o f c o m p eten cyan d u p h eld h is co n v ict ion , rejecti n g M ay n ard ’s ot hercl ai m s of err orfr om t he or i gi nal pr ocee di ng. M a yn a rd o ri g in a lly f

ile d h is p e titio n p ro s e , ra is in g tw e lv e p o in ts o f e rr o r. T h e d istri ct co u rtap p o inted co u n sel fo r M ay n ard , w h o n arro w ed M ay n ard ’s cl ai m s t o t w o centr al i s s ues : ( 1) w hethert he tr i al courtw r ongl yconcl uded M a yn a rd w a s c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial, a n d (2 ) w h e th e r M a yn a rd ’s S ix th A m en d m en t w aive r of co u n sel w as v ali d . A m ag istrate jud g e fo r th e N o rth ern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma r ecomm ended thatt he di s tr i ctcourtgr antt he pet i t i on on bot h gr ounds . T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s agr eed, concl udi ng i ns t ead thatt he evi dence w as s uffi ci enton habea s r evi ew t o s us t ai n the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ngs of compet ence , and, t hatM aynar d had val i dl yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o couns el . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. I I . St andard of R evi ewAE DP A r e q u i r e s t h a tM a yn a r d e x h a u s th i s s t a t e c o u rtr e me d i e s b e fo r e we 2 can gr anthabea s , 28 U . S. C . § 2254( b) ( 1) ( A ) . W hi l e he ha s notdone s o, w e may s till d e n yh is g ra n t o f h a b e a s o n th e m e ri ts , a s w e d o h e re in . Id . at § 2 2 5 4 (b)(2 ).

-5- T hi s cas e r equi r es us t o ent erthe l abyr i nth of col l at er al r evi ew underthe A nt i t err or i s m and E ffe ct i ve D eath Penal ty A ct ( A E D PA ) . “I n an appe al of the 2 di s m i s s al of a feder al habea s corpus pet i t i on, w e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctforcl earerr orand i t s concl us i ons of l aw de novo. ” R obi ns on v. G older , 4 4 3 F .3 d 7 1 8 , 7 2 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). U nderA E D PA , w hen w e r evi ew a s t at e courtdeci s i on thatr es ol ved an a p p e a l o n th e m e rits, as in th is c a se , w e w ill g ra n t a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s o n lyif t he d eci si on “w as c o n tra ry to , ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on o f, cle a rly es t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed S tate s.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); a c c o rdP a rk e r v . Sc o tt , 394 F. 3d 13 02 , 13 08 ( 10 t h Ci r . 20 05 ) . W he n r e vi e w i ng fa c tua l c ha l l e ng e s , A ED PA al s o author i zes fede r al cour t s t o gr antt he w r i tonl yw her e the s t at e dec i s i on “w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence p re s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )( 2 ). W i t hi n t he s t andar d of r evi ew forl egal ques t i ons pr ovi ded by§ 2254( d) ( 1) a re tw o d istin c t sta n d a rd s: th e “ c o n tra ryto ” sta n d a rd a n d th e “ u n re a so n a b le a p p lic a tio n ” s ta n d a rd . Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U . S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 4 (20 0 0 ). F o r a d e c isio n to b e “ c o n tra ryto ” c lea rlye sta b lish e d fe d e ra l law , a p e tit io n e r c o u ld s how t hatt he s t at e court“appl i es a rul e thatcontr adi ct s t he governi ng l aw s et-6-

fo rth in [ S u p re m e C o u rt] c a se s” o r th a t “th e sta te c o u rt c o n f ro n ts a se t o f

fa c ts t hatar e mat er i al l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om a dec i s i on of [the Supr eme] C our tand nevert hel es s arr i ves ata r es ul tdi ffe r entfr om ourpr ece dent . ” Id. a t 4 0 5 .

“ [ A ] ru n -o f-th e -m ill sta te- c o u rt d e c isio n a p p ly in g th e c o rre c t leg a l ru le f ro m [ S u p re m e C o u rt] c a se s to th e fa c ts o f a p riso n e r’s c a se w o u ld n o t fit comfort abl yw i t hi n § 2254( d) ( 1) ’ s ‘ contr aryt o’ cl aus e. ” Id. at40 6. T hese cases, i ns t ead, ar e governed byt he “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on” s t andar d, w hi ch appl i es t o “[a ] s t at e- cour tdeci s i on t hatcorr ect l yi dent i fi es the governi ng l egal rul e but appl i es i tunr eas onabl yt o t he fa ct s of a pa r t i cul arpr i s oner ’ s cas e. ” Id. a t 4 0 7

– 8 . T he Supr eme C our thas offe r ed s om e gui dance i n i nt erpr et i ng the “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on” s t andar d. I n Wi l l i a ms , the C our tacknow l edged that al t ho ug h “[t] he term ‘unreasonable’ i s no d ou bt di ffi cultt o d efi ne. . . . [I] ti s a c o m m o n ter m in th e leg a l w o rld a n d , ac c o rd in g ly , fe d e ra l ju d g e s a re fa m ili a r w ith i t s m eani ng. ” 529 U . S. at410. T he Supr eme C our ts ubs equent l yexpl ai ned that “the r ange of

r eas onabl e j udgm entcan de pend i n par ton the natur e of the r el evant rul e. ” Yar bor ough v. A lvar ado , 541 U . S. 652, 664 ( 2004) . T he C our tcont i nued: I f a l egal rul e i s s peci fi c, t he r ange m ay be narr ow . A ppl i cat i ons of the ru le m a yb e p lain lyc o r r e c t o r in c o rre c t. O th e r ru les a re m o re g e n e ra l, and thei rm eani ng m us temer ge i n appl i ca ti o n o verthe cour s e of t i m e. A ppl y i ng a gene r al s t andar d t o a spec i fi c cas e ca n demand a s ubs t ant i al el ement of j udgm ent . A s a r es ul t , eval uat i ng w hethera rul e appl i cat i on w as u n rea so n ab le req u ir es co n side ri n g the rule’s sp ec ifi city . T h e m o re g e n e ra l th e ru le, th e m o re lee w a yc o u rts h a v e in re a c h in g o u tco m e s in case bycase determ i nati on s.-7-

Id. T h e test fo r gra n ti n g a w ri t un d er this st an d ard is “w h ethe r th e state c o u rt ’s app l i cat i on of clear l yest abli shed federal l aw w as o b jec tive ly u n re a so n a b le . ” Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . at 4 0 9 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee als o P arker , 394 F. 3d at1308 ( not i ng t hatt hi s i s “an obj ect i ve s t andar d”) . T he ques t i on of obj ect i ve unr eas onabl enes s l ends i t s el f t o a r ange of i nt erpr et at i ons . A tone end of the ran g e, th e S u p rem e C o u rth as h eld “ o bjecti v elyu n rea so n ab le” d o es n o t r eq u ir e “al l r eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d agr ee [ ] the s t at e courtw as unr eas onabl e. ” Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 3 7 7 . A tt he otherend, even a cl ear l yerr oneous appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw i s not obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e. I n Wi l l i a ms , the C our thel d that“an u n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw i s di ffe r entfr om an i ncor r ectappl i cat i on of fe der al l aw . ” Id. a t 4 1 0 ; accord P arker , 3 9 4 F . 3 d at 13 0 8 . T h u s, “a fe d era l hab ea s co u rt m aynoti s s ue the w r i ts i m pl ybeca us e thatcour tconcl udes i n i t s i ndepende nt j udgm entt hatt he r el evants t at e- courtdeci s i on appl i ed cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw err oneous l yori ncorr ect l y . R ather , thatappl i cat i on m us tal s o be unr eas onabl e. ” Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . at 4 1 1 ; a c c o rdMcL u c k ie v . A b b o tt , 337 F. 3d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); se e A n d e rs o n v . Mu lli n , 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ [ W ]e m a yn o t g ra n t h a b e a s re lief m e re lyb e c a u se w e d isa g re e w ith the s tat e c o u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f [ co n sti tuti o n al] princ iples. ”).-8-

T he Supr eme C our tr ece nt l yr eaffi r m ed thes e pr i nci pl es : “The

‘ unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on’ cl aus e r equi r es the s t at e courtdeci s i on t o be more t han i ncorr ectorerr oneous . ” Lockye rv. A ndr ade , 5 3 8 U . S . 6 3 , 7 5 (20 0 3 ). It c o n tin u e d , “T h e g lo ss o f c lea r e rro r fa ils to g iv e p ro p e r d e fe re n c e to sta te c o u rts byconfl at i ng err or( even c l earerr or ) w i th unr eas onabl enes s . I ti s notenough that a fe d e ra l h a b e a s c o u rt, i n its in d e p e n d e n t re v iew o f th e leg a l q u e stio n , is lef t w ith a fi r m convi ct i on t hatt he s t at e courtw as err oneous . ” Id . ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). In d e sc rib in g th is ra n g e e sta b lish e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, t he Second Ci r cui tobs erved “thatan ‘ obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e’ appl i cat i on of Supr eme C our tpr ece dentfal l s s om ew her e betw een ‘ m er el yerr oneous and unr eas onabl e t o al l r eas onabl e j ur i s t s . ’ ” He n ry v . P o o le , 4 0 9 F . 3 d 4 8 , 6 8 (2d C ir . 2005) . I n l i ghtof Lockye r , w e a d d that o bjecti v e u n rea so n ab lene ss is som ew h ere betw een c lea rly err on eou s and u nreasonab l e t o all reas on able j uri st s. O urci r cui thas y ett o pr ovi de much gui dance i n appl y i ng thes e s t andar ds of r evi ew . O t herci r cui t s , how ever , have s oughtt o gi ve cont entt o the r ange of r eas onabl enes s s ugges t ed byt he Supr eme C our t . T he Second Ci r cui texpl ai ned, “Som e i ncr ementof i ncorr ectnes s bey ond err ori s r equi r ed, ” buti tcont i nued, “the in c re m e n t n e e d n o t b e g re a t; o th e rw ise h a b e a s re lief w o u ld b e lim ited to sta te cour tdeci s i ons s o faroff the mar k as t o s ugges tj udi ci al i ncompet ence . W e do notbel i eve A E D PA r es t r i ct ed fe der al habea s corpus t o thatext ent . ” Monr oe v.T hes e court s have notar t i cul at ed a s t andar d bey ond thati s s ued byt he 3 S u p re m e C o u rt, p e rh a p s b e c a u se , as th e F if th C irc u it p u t it : I m pos i ng a surr ogat e “unr eas onabl enes s ” st andar d att hi s t i m e w oul d be a r i s kypr opos i t i on, as ourr edef i ni t i on m i ghtpr ove unfa i thful t o the S u p re m e C o u rt' s in ten d e d m e a n in g . U n d o u b ted ly , the ter m “ o bjec tiv e ly u n r e a s o n a b l e ” wi l l a c q u i r e s o me d e fi n i t i o n ( a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m a d e fin iti o n ) th ro u g h th e c o u rse o f its a p p lica tio n b yfe d e ra l h a b e a s c o u rts in indi vi dual cas es . T o the ext entthata nuanc ed, cont extual i nterpret at i on of “o bject i vely un reas on able” em erges fr om t his process overt i m e, t hi s el abor at i on w i l l be more us eful and meani ngful than any defi ni t i on w e mi ghtchoos e t o i m pos e ab i ni t i o. Ne a l v. P u c ke tt , 2 8 6 F . 3 d 2 3 0 , 2 4 6 n . 1 4 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). -9- Kuhlm an , 433 F. 3d 236, 246 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m itt e d ); accord Sant i ago v. Spence r , 3 4 6 F .3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 1 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). St aki ng outa di ffe r entform ul at i on, the Seventh C i r cui thas s ugges t ed that “an unr eas onabl e s t at e courtdeci s i on i s one l y i ng w el l out s i de the boundar i es of perm i s s i bl e di ffe r ence s of opi ni on orone thati s ats uch t ens i on w i th governi ng U . S . S up rem e C ou rtpreceden t s, or so i nad equ at el ysupp ort ed b ythe record, or so arbi t r aryas t o be unr eas onabl e. ” B a d e lle v . C o rr e ll , 4 5 2 F . 3 d 6 4 8 , 6 5 5 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). T he maj or i t yof ci r cui t s , i ncl udi ng our s , have appl i ed Wi l l i am s a n d its pr ogenyon i t s ow n t erm s w i t houtatt empt i ng t o cl ar i fyorexpl ai n w hati tm eans for a deci s i on t o be obj ect i vel y unr eas onabl e. See, e. g. , P a rk e r v . Sc o tt , 394 F. 3d 3 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 8

– 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); C ook v. McKune , 3 2 3 F . 3 d 8 2 5 , 8 3 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); P a in e v . Ma ss ie , 3 3 9 F .3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 1 9 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); S p e a rs v . Mu lli n ,T w o s epar at e Supr eme C our tcas es t i t l ed Wi l l i am s v. Taylor r egar di ng 4 A E D PA w er e publ i s hed bac k- t o- back. T hi s cas e i s nott he s ame cas e as t hatci t ed e a rl ie r i n th is o p in io n . -10- 3 4 3 F . 3 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 2 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); War r en v. K yl er , 422 F. 3d 132, 138 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Walkerv. True , 4 0 1 F .3 d 5 7 4 , 5 7 9 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), vacated on other gr ounds , 1 2 6 S . C t. 10 2 8 (2 0 0 6 ); Mur phy v. D r etke , 4 1 6 F . 3 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 2 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); Lopezv. Wi ls on , 4 2 6 F .3 d 3 3 9 , 3 5 7 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Sw ar tzv. B urger , 412 F .3 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 0 9

– 1 0 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Kesserv. C am bra , 392 F. 3d 327, 335–36 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); Jo n e s v . C a mp b e ll , 4 3 6 F .3 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 9 3 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). O n b a lan c e , w e a g re e w ith th o se c o u rts th a t g ra n t co n sid e ra b le d e fe re n c e to s t a t e c o u r td e c i s i o n s . A E D P A w a s e n a c t e d t o “ f u r th e rth e p r i n c i p l e s o f c o m i ty, fi nal i t y , and fe der al i s m . ” Wi l l i a ms v. Tayl or , 52 9 U . S . 42 0, 43 6 (2000 ). T hu s, 4 o n lyth e m o st s e rio u s m isa p p lica tio n s o f S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t w ill b e a b a sis forr el i ef unde r§ 2254. I n ourvi ew , a dec i s i on i s “obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e” w h e n m o st re a so n a b le ju rists e x e rc isin g th e ir in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t w o u ld concl ude the s t at e courtm i s appl i ed Supr eme C our tl aw . I ti s notenough thatt he deci s i on i s cl ear l yw r ong ort hatthe r evi ew i ng cour tw oul d have r eac hed a co n tr aryd ec isi o n . In o ther w o rds, t o rep ea t th e S ev en th C ir cu it , the s tat e c o u rt decis i on m ustbe “at s uch t ensi on w i th g ov erni ng U . S . S up rem e C ou rtpreceden t s, ors o i nadequa t el ys uppor t ed byt he r ecor d, ors o arbi tr aryas t o be unr eas onabl e. ” B a d e lle , 4 5 2 F . 3 d at 65 5 (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). II I. A n a ly sis-11-

W i t h t he s t andar d of r evi ew i n m i nd, w e tur n t o M aynar d’ s obj ect i ons on a p p e a l. H e m a k e s o n e c e n tra l cla im : h e w a s n o t co m p e ten t to w a iv e h is rig h t to an att or neyort o s t and tr i al . Fr om thi s centr al pr opos i t i on, he ar gues thatthe O k l a h o m a c o u r t s ( 1 ) a p p l i e d t h e w r o n g l e g a l s t a n d a r d i n d e t e r m i n i n g c o m p e t e n c y; ( 2) err oneous l yconcl uded s uffi ci entevi dence exi s t ed t o s uppor tthe j ur yfi ndi ngs of compet ency ; ( 3) i m pr oper l yal l ow ed a r etr os pect i ve hea r i ng ei ghty ear s aft er th e trial to d e ter m in e c o m p e ten c y ; an d (4 ) w ro n g f u llya llo w e d h im to w a iv e h is ri g h t to c o u n s e l. O u r re v iew is fif

tee n y e a rs a f

ter a ju ryc o n c lu d e d M a yn a rd to b e c o m p e ten t, a n d s ix y e a rs a f

te r a s e c o n d ju ry fo u n d h im c o m p e te n t in a re tr o s p e c tiv e h e a ri n g . W e a re tro u b led b yth is tim e tab le a s w e ll as m u c h o f th e e v id e n c e in tro d u c e d in t he pr ocee di ngs bel ow . B utas w e di s cus s ed above , the s t andar d i s notour su bjecti v e re ac ti o n to the ev iden ce . W e a re req u ir ed to loo k at th e state c o u rt d e c is io n s th ro u g h th e le n s o f A E D P A . B a se d o n th a t re v iew , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in deny i ng M aynar d’ s pet i t i on forr el i ef. A . C ompet ency 1. Jur y Ins tr uct i ons M a yn a rd a rg u e s th a t h e w a s in c o m p e ten t th ro u g h o u t th e p ro c e e d in g s in O s age Count yand thatt he j ur ydet erm i nat i ons of compet encyw er e bas ed on the w r ong s t andar d. Pr i ort o t r i al , t w o j ur i es — one i n D el aw ar e C ountyi n 1989, the-12-

ot heri n O s age Count yi n 1990— concl uded thatM aynar d w as compet ent . T he O s age Count ydet erm i nat i on l ed t o M aynar d’ s tr i al i n the under l y i ng cas e ati s s ue i n t hi s habea s pet i t i on. O n di r ectappea l of M aynar d’ s 1991 tr i al , how ever , the O C C A concl uded the tr i al cour thad appl i ed the w r ong bur den of pr oof i n the compet encydet erm i nat i on. I ns t ead of appl y i ng a pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d, t he j ur yw as i ns t ruct ed t o fi nd l ack of compet encybycl earand convi nci ng evi dence , a s t andar d the Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed i n C ooperv. O k la h o m a , 517 U . S. 348 ( 1996) . T he O C C A therefore r em and ed M aynard’s case back t o t he tr i al cour tfort w o r eas ons : ( 1) t o det erm i ne i f a r etr os pect i ve hea r i ng w a s p o ss ib le to a ss e ss c o m p e ten c e u n d e r th e c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd , an d (2 ) to conducta r etr os pect i ve hea r i ng i f i tw er e pos s i bl e. A s econd j ur yi n 1999, concl udi ng t he hea r i ng w as fea s i bl e, found M aynar d w as compet entatthe t i m e of hi s t r i al i n 1991 undert he pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d. “A cr i m i nal defe ndant[ca nnot ] be tr i ed unl es s he i s compet ent . ” G odi nez v. Mor an , 509 U . S. 389, 396 ( 1993) . T he Supr eme C our thas hel d thatt he s t andar d bot h forcompet ence t o s t and tr i al and t o w ai ve couns el i s t he s ame: “w hethert he defendanthas s uffi ci entpr es entabi l i tyt o cons ul tw i th hi s l aw y er w i t h a r eas onabl e degr ee of r at i onal under s t andi ng and has a r at i onal as w el l as fac tual under s t andi ng of the pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m . ” Id . ( ci t i ng D us ky v . Uni t ed Stat es , 3 6 2 U .S . 4 0 2 (1 9 6 0 )) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e k e yis-13-

w h e th e r t h e d e fe n d a n t h a s a ra tio n a l a n d fa c tu a l u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e p ro c e e d in g s . Id. T he i ns t ruct i ons gi ven t o t he j ur ypr ovi ded:

Iti s necessaryt hat y ou un derst and w hat cert ai n term s used i n these i ns t ruct i ons m ean i n t he l aw . T he fol l ow i ng defi ni t i ons appl yher e: 1. “compet ent ” or“compet ency ” means the abi l i tyof a pe r s on arr es t ed fororchar ged w i th a cr i m e t o under s t and the natur e of the cha r ges and proceed i ng s brough tagainsthim and t o effect i velyand rat i on al l yassi st i n hi s defe ns e. 2. “I ncompet ent ” or“i ncompet ency ” means the i nabi l i tyof a pe r s on arr es t ed fororchar ged w i th a cr i m e t o unders t and the natur e of the cha r ges and proceed i ng s brough tagainsthim and t o effect i velyand rat i on al l yassi st i n hi s defe ns e. St at e C our tR ecor ds , O r i gi nal R ecor d, V ol . I I , 155. T he d i stri ctcou rtfou nd t hat the instruct i on sat i sfi es G od i nez and D us ky . W e a g r e e . Th e c o n c e p to f r a t i o n a l i tyi s p r e s e n t e d s q u a r e l yi n th e i n s tru c t i o n . To s at i s fyt he i ns t ruct i on, t he j ur yw oul d have t o fi nd thatthe defendantunder s t ood th e n a tu re o f

th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im a n d w a s a b le to e ffe c tiv e lya n d ra tio n a lly a ss ist c o u n se l. T o d o b o th w o u ld o b v io u slym e e t D us ky ’ s r equi r ementthatthe d e fe n d a n t h a v e a ra tio n a l a n d fa c tu a l u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e p ro c e e d in g s . Id. T he om i s s i on of the w or d “fa ctual ” i n the i ns truct i on, as s ugges t ed byM aynar d, detr act s l i t t l e fr om t he over al l t hrus tof the i ns truct i on. O kl ahoma cour t s have r epea t edl yconcl uded thi s i ns t ruct i on m eet s the D us ky s ta n d a rd . See G i l ber tv. S ta te , 9 5 1 P .2 d 9 8 (O k la. C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ); Va ld ez v . S ta te , 900 P. 2d 363 ( O kl a.-14-

C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ); P e rr y v . S ta te , 8 9 3 P .2 d 5 2 1 (O k la. C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ); L am bert v . S ta te , 8 8 8 P . 2 d 4 9 4 , 4 9 8 (O k la. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t M a yn a rd is n o t en tit led to r el i ef on thi s gr ound.

2. Suf f i ci ency of

E vi dence M aynar d al s o chal l enges t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence i n s uppor tof the jury ’s find ing o f c o m p eten ce . H e a rgu es th at th e juryim p rop erlyrejected ex p ert t es t i m onyof i ncompet ence and w r ongful l ycr edi t ed the t es t i m onyof l ay w itn esse s. T h e d istri ct co u rtfo u n d the e v iden ce ad eq u ate to su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s det erm i nat i on and thatt he j ur y ’ s concl us i ons w er e ent i t l ed t o a pr es um pt i on of c o rr e c tn e s s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e ). S uffi ci encyof the evidence is a m i xed qu est i on of law and fact . W e ask w hethert he fa ct s ar e corr ectand w hethert he l aw w as pr oper l yappl i ed t o the fac t s , w hi ch i s w hyw e appl yboth 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ( 1) and ( d) ( 2) w hen re v ie w in g s u ffic ie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e o n h a b e a s . S e e Ha m ilto n v . Mu lli n , 436 F .3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 9 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); s ee als o Hal e v. G i bs on , 227 F. 3d 1298, 1335 n. 17 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( not i ng pr ece denthas i nves t i gat ed s uffi ci encyof the ev iden ce b o th as a leg al qu esti o n an d as a fa ctua l qu esti o n ). W e a re re q u ire d to defe rt o anydet erm i nat i on of fa ctual i s s ue byt he s t at e courtdue t o the p re s u m p tio n o f

c o rr e c tn e s s a ffo rd e d b y§ 2 2 5 4 (e ). F i elds v. G i bs on , 277 F. 3d 1203, 1221 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) . I n appl y i ng thi s r equi r ement , w e have found thatt heT w o di ffe r entj ur i es concl uded thatM aynar d w as compet entt o s t and tr i al 5 befor e thi s appea l

— fi r s ti n 1989 and aga i n i n 1990. -15- pr es um pt i on can onl ybe over come by“cl earand convi nci ng” evi dence thatthe d e fe n d a n t w a s in c o m p e te n t a t th e tim e o f tr ia l. B r

yan v. G i bs on , 276 F. 3d 1163 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e a g r e e wi t h th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tth a tM a yn a r d h a s n o to v e r c o me th is p re s u m p tio n . M ay n ard h as n o t est ab li sh ed b yclea r an d co n v incin g ev iden ce that the ju ry erred . F ir st, the ju ryh ea rd f rom a layw itn ess (a n o ffici al at th e jail w h ere 5 M aynar d s pentt w o y ear s ) w ho t es t i fi ed thatM aynar d under s t ood the cha r ges ag ains t him an d w as a b le t o co m m u n icate w ith h is at torn ey s. S ec o n d , M ay n ard tes tifie d a t th e p ro c e e d in g a n d w a s a b le ( 1 ) to e x p lain w ith so m e d e tail h is under s t andi ng of the cha r ges agai ns thi m , ( 2) hi s di s trus tforl aw y er s ar i s i ng fr om p r e v i o u s l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d ( 3 ) h i s p r o p o s e d d e fe n s e s t o t h e c h a r g e s . F i n a l l y, the ju ryh ea rd f

rom an ex p ert w itn ess. T h e w itn ess d eterm ined M ay n ard under s t ood t he cha r ges br oughtagai ns thi m , buthe coul d notas s i s tcouns el b ec au se o f h is distrust o f law y ers f rom p rev iou s ca ses. T h e state d id n o t offe r a r e b u t t a l e x p e r tt o t h i s t e s t i m o n y. M aynar d ar gues t hi s unr ebutt ed expe r tt es t i m onyi s enough t o over come t he pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s . Fort w o r eas ons , w e di s agr ee. Fi r s t , as t he di s tr i ct c o u rt fo u n d , the ju ryw a s e n tit led to w e ig h th e c o n flictin g e v id e n c e a n d its c re d ib ili ty . S e c o n d , the re c o rd sh o w s th a t th e e x p e rt tes tim o n yw a s c a st in-16-

s uffi ci entdoubtas t o r ai s e cr edi bi l i tyconce rns . T he O kl ahoma cour t s have “nev er r equ i red a j uryt o surr end er i t s [] op i nions t o thatof an exp ertw i tness” w hi l e furt hernot i ng “[c ] om pet encyt o s t and tr i al i s notm er el ya medi cal i s s ue. ” Ry d e r v . S ta te , 8 3 P . 3 d 8 5 6 , 8 6 8 , 8 7 0 (O k la. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (up h o lding jury fi ndi ng of compet ence des pi t e det erm i nat i on fr om l i cens ed ps y chol ogi s tt o the c o n tra ry ). H e re , the e x p e rt w a s n o t a p sy c h iatris t o r p sy c h o lo g ist. H is backgr ound w as i n couns el i ng. T he expe r tonl ycons ul t ed w i th M aynar d foran hourpr i ort o hi s t es t i m ony . M or e i m por t ant l y , the expe r tes s ent i al l yconce ded th a t M a yn a rd u n d e rsto o d th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im , alth o u g h h e h a d tro u b le w o rk in g w ith h is la w y e rs . W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tthatthe j ury ’ s concl us i ons ar e pr es um ed corr ectunder§ 2254( e) . M aynar d has notpoi nt ed t o cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatover comes the pr es um pt i on. W hi l e the r ecor d does notconvi nce us t hatw e w oul d nece s s ar i l yagr ee w i th the j ur y ’ s det erm i nat i on of compet ence at firstb lush , w e c o n clud e a rati o n al j u ryco u ld h av e c o n clud ed that M ay n ard ’s t es t i m onyand the def i ci enci es i n t he expe r tt es t i m onyw ei ghed i n favorof fi ndi ng co m p eten ce . T h e d eterm ination in the firstinstan ce is fo r th e juro rs an d w e a re notfr ee t o s ubs t i tut e ourvi ew of the evi dence . U nderA E D PA , a cha l l enge t o t he su fficie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e m u st e sta b lish th a t n o “ ra tio n a l trier o f fa c t” c o u ld h a v e fo u n d M a yn a rd c o m p e te n t b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . C

f . Jacks onI n J a c ks o n , th e su fficie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e w a s “ b e y o n d a re a so n a b le 6 d o u b t,” b e c a u s e th a t w a s th e e v id e n tia ry b u rd e n fo r t h e is s u e a t tr ia l. C om pet ency , as w e have not ed, i s det erm i ned bas ed on a pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d. -17- v . Virg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 319 ( 1979) . O n thi s s t andar d, w e ca nnotconcl ude that 6 the O C C A in rev iew ing the ju ry ’s find ing u n rea so n ab lyap p li ed S u p rem e C o u rt pr ece denti n deny i ng M aynar d’ s cl ai m , norcan w e fi nd thatt he j ur y ’ s fac tual d e ter m in a tio n w a s u n re a so n a b le “ in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted in th e S tate co u rtp roc ee d ing . ” § 2 2 5 4 (d). A ccor di ngl y , t he di s t r i ctcourtdi d noterri n r efus i ng t o gr antt he pet i t i on on t hi s gr ound.

3. R etr os

pect i ve Hear i ng M ay n ard n ex t argu es th at th e d istri ct co u rterred in ac ce p ti n g the ju ry c o m p e ten c yd e ter m in a tio n b a se d o n a re tro sp e c tiv e h e a rin g . O n d ire c t ap p e a l, t he O C C A concl uded thatt he j uryappl i ed the w r ong s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng compet ency . I tr emanded t he ca s e t o the tr i al courtfora det erm i nat i on of w h ethe r a retrosp ec ti v e c o m p eten cyh ea ri n g w as fea sible. T h e tri al co u rt concl uded a he ar i ng w as fea s i bl e and, i n 1999, r etr i ed the ques t i on of w hether M a yn a rd w a s c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l in 1 9 9 1 . A lth o u g h “[ r]etr o sp ec ti v e c o m p eten cyh ea ri n g s are g en era ll y‘disfa v o red , ’” th e ya re “ p e rm iss ib le w h e n e v e r a c o u rt c a n c o n d u c t a m e a n in g f u l h e a rin g to eval uat e r etr os pect i vel yt he compet encyof the defendant . ” McG r egorv. G i bs on ,-18-

248 F. 3d 946, 962 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( en banc ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n deci di ng w hethera r etr os pect i ve compet encyhear i ng i s fea s i bl e, a courts houl d cons i der fo u r fa c to rs: ( 1) [T]he pas s age of t i m e, ( 2) the av ai l abi l i tyof cont empora neous m edi ca l evi dence , i ncl udi ng m edi cal r ecor ds and pr i orcompet ency det erm i nat i ons , ( 3) anys t at ement s byth e defe ndanti n the tr i al r ecor d, a n d (4 ) th e a v a ilab ili tyo f in d iv id u a ls a n d trial w itn e ss e s , b o th e x p e rts and non- expert s , w ho w er e i n a pos i t i on t o i nt er actw i th defe ndant befor e and dur i ng t r i al , i ncl udi ng the tr i al j udge, cou n sel forboth the go vernm ent and d efen dan t , and j ai l offi ci al s. Id. at962- 63. A p p ly in g th e se fa c to rs, th e O C C A ’s d e c isio n is n o t co n tra ryto c lea rly e sta b lish e d fe d e ra l law . M a yn a rd c o n c e d e s th a t th e th ird a n d fo u rth p ro n g s c u t in favorof a r etr os pect i ve hea r i ng and t akes i s s ue onl yw i th the fi r s ttw o. P a s s a g e o

f Ti me . Iti s und i sputed that ei gh ty ears passed b et w een the fi rs t t r i al and the r etr os pect i ve hea r i ng. M aynar d ar gues thatthe Supr eme C our thas h e ld th a t s ix y e a rs w a s to o lo n g fo r a re tr o s p e c tiv e c o m p e te n c ye v a lu a tio n . P a te v. R obi ns on , 383 U . S. 375, 387 ( 1966) . I n cons trui ng P a te , how ever , w e have h e ld th a t a s ix -y e a r d e lay w a s n o t to o lo n g , sta tin g th a t “[ t]h e p a ss a g e o f tim e is n o t an in su rm o u n tab le o b sta c le if su fficie n t co n tem p o ra n e o u s in fo rm a tio n is avai l abl e. ” C l ayt on v. G i bs on , 199 F. 3d 1162, 1169 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal c itatio n s a n d q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). “A ‘m e a n in g f u l’ d e ter m in a tio n is p o ss ib le w her e the s t at e of the r ecor d, t ogetherw i th s uch addi t i onal evi dence as m aybe-19-

relev an t and av ail ab le, p erm it s an ac cu rate ass essm en t of the d efen d an t’ s condi t i on att he t i m e of the or i gi nal s t at e pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. W hi l e a l engthyt i m e has pas s ed, thi s i s a ca s e w her e the O C C A di d not u n re a so n a b lya p p lyS u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t in c o n c lu d in g th e a v a ilab le evi dence “perm i t [t ed] an ac cur at e as s es s m entof the defendant ’ s condi t i on atthe t i m e of the or i gi nal s t at e pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. T he onl ydi s put e i s as t o the avai l abi l i t yof evi dence fr om t he ea r l i erpr ocee di ng. A v a ila b ility o

f C o n te mp o r a n e o u s E v id e n c e . A tthe r etr os pect i ve hea r i ng, t he ava i l abi l i t yof cont empora neous evi dence w as s ubs t ant i al . A l l of the w i t nesses fr om t he p ri or tri al w ere avai l able. M aynard’s t est i m on yfrom the fir st tr ia l w a s re a d in to th e re c o rd a f te r h e c h o s e n o t to te s tif ya t th e 1 9 9 9 h e a ri n g . M a yn a rd a lso c a lled a n a d d iti o n a l w itn e ss , an in m a te w h o h a d b e e n jaile d w ith h im in 1 9 9 1 . M a yn a rd c laim s th a t m a n yo f h is p sy c h o lo g ica l re c o rd s w e re n o t av a ilab le a t th e 1 9 9 9 h e a rin g . H e c laim s, fo r e x a m p le, th a t v a rio u s d o c u m e n ts s h o w in g h im i ncompet entt o s t and tr i al w er e des tr oy ed byfi r e. ( A pl t . B r . at19, n. 3. ) B ut M aynar d does notexpl ai n w i t h anys peci fi ci tyw hatw as m i s s i ng, and nothi ng fr om t he tr ans cr i ptof the 1999 hea r i ng s how s thatM aynar d w as i nhi bi t ed fr om i nt r oduci ng document s fr om t he 1991 hea r i ng oreven thatanythi ng w as m i s s i ng f ro m th e fir s t tr ia l.-20-

In th e a b sen ce o f sp ec ifi c re aso n s su p p o rt ing this clai m , the d istri ct co u rt di d noterri n r ej ect i ng t hi s ar gum ent . W e agr ee thatthe O C C A ’ s det erm i nat i on wa s n o tc o n t r a r yt o o ra n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f S u p r e me Co u r tl a w. B . Wai verof

R ightt o C ouns el W e tur n nextt o M aynar d’ s cl ai m r egar di ng w ai verof couns el . B eca us e the O C C A reached thi s cl ai m on t he m eri t s, w e revi ew for obj ect i ve u nreasonab l eness u n d e r A E D P A . T he Supr eme C our thas unequi vocal l yhel d thatthe Si xth A m endment “gr ant s t o t he ac cus ed per s onal l ythe r i ghtt o m ake hi s defe ns e. ” Far et ta v. C a lif o rn ia , 42 2 U . S . 80 6, 81 9 (197 5). B ut s i nce the ri gh tt o co un sel i s al so cons t i tut i onal l yguar ant eed, a defendantm ayw ai ve the r i ghtt o couns el onl yi f the w a iv e r i s k n o w in g , in te llig e n t, a n d v o lu n ta ry. E dw ar ds v. A r iz ona , 451 U . S. 477, 4 8 2 (1 9 8 1 ); Fa re tta , 4 2 2 U .S . at 8 3 5 ; see also United S tates v. A kers , 215 F. 3d 1089, 1097 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( “The r i ghtof s el f- r epr es ent at i on . . . i s not ab so lute. ”). O f c o u rse, w h ethe r a w aive r w as k n o w ing , intell igen t, an d v o lun tary “depe nds i n eac h cas e upon the part i cul arfac t s and ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng th a t c a s e , in c lu d in g th e b a c k g ro u n d , e x p e ri e n c e , a n d c o n d u c t o f th e a c c u s e d .” E dw ar ds , 4 5 1 U .S . a t 4 8 2 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). B efo re a co u rtm ayg ran t a w aive r, itm u st en su re the d efen d an t i s “a w are o f th e d a n g e rs a n d d isa d v a n tag e s o f se lf-re p re se n tatio n , so th a t th e re c o rd w ill es t abl i s h t hathe know s w hathe i s doi ng and hi s choi ce i s m ade w i th ey es open. ”-21-

Fa re tta , 422 U . S. at835 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he tr i al j udge has “the s er i ous and w ei ght yr es pons i bi l i ty. . . of det erm i ni ng w hetherther e i s an i nt el l i gentand compet entw ai verbythe ac cus ed. ” Joh nson v. Zerbst , 30 4 U. S. 458, 465 ( 1938) T he p ri ncipal authori t yon “com petentand i ntel l i gen t ” w ai ver i s G odi nezv. Mor an , 509 U . S. 389 ( 1993) , w hi ch r evi ew ed a s t at e courtdeci s i on gr ant i ng a d efen d an t’ s m o ti o n to p roc ee d p ro se . T h e S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at th e tri al co u rt w ill n o t d isc h a rg e its d u tyto e n su re th e w a iv e r w a s v a lid w h e n it d e ter m in e d o n ly t hatt he defendantw as compet entt o s t and tr i al w i thoutpr obi ng w hetherthe w a iv e r w a s a lso k n o w in g a n d in tellig e n t. A d e fe n d a n t “m a yn o t w a iv e h is rig h t to couns el orpl ead gui l t yunl es s he does s o ‘ compet ent l yand i nt el l i gent l y . ’ ” Id. at 3 9 6 . T hus , a tr i al courti s obl i gat ed t o conducta tw o- parti nqui ryt o ens ur e a w a iv e r w a s v a lid . Id. a t 4 0 1 . F irst, th e c o u rt m u st e n su re th e d e fe n d a n t is c o m p e t e n t . S e c o n d , t h e w a i v e rm u s tb e k n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a ry. 1. C ompet ence . T he Supr eme C our thas hel d thatthe s t andar d of compet encyt o pl ead gui l t yorw ai ve the r i ghtt o couns el w as the s ame as the s t andar d of compet ency to s ta n d tr ia l. Id. at398. T hi s s t andar d cons i der s w hetherthe defendanthas “s uffi ci entpr es entabi l i t yt o cons ul tw i th hi s l aw y erw i th a r eas onabl e degr ee of r at i onal under s t andi ng” and ha s “a r at i onal as w el l as fac tual under s t andi ng of the-22-

pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m . ” Id. at398 ( quot i ng D us ky v . Uni t ed Stat es , 36 2 U. S. 4 0 2 (1 9 6 0 ) ( p e r c u ri a m )) . W e h av e c o n clud ed ab o v e tha t th e juryd id n o t err i n fin d ing that M ay n ard w as compet entt o s t and tr i al . A nd M aynar d does notar gue thatthe tr i al cour thad an obl i gat i on t o m ake a n addi t i onal queryi nt o hi s compet ence atthe w ai ver hear i ng i n l i ghtof the Sept ember4, 1990 j urydet erm i nat i on. M aynar d w as as s i s t ed bycouns el att he w ai verhear i ng. C ouns el di d notr ai s e the ques t i on of co m p eten cyto the tr ial co u rt , o r object t o the h ea ri n g b ec au se o f M ay n ard ’s m ent al s t at e. A ccor di ngl y , w e turn t o w hetherthe w ai verw as know i ng and v o l u n t a r y. 2. Know i ng and Vol untar y. “I n addi t i on t o det erm i ni ng thata defendantw ho s eeks t o pl ead gui l tyor w a iv e c o u n se l is c o m p e ten t, a tria l co u rt m u st s a tisf yitse lf th a t th e w a iv e r o f

h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s i s know i ng and vol unt ary . ” G od i nez, 5 0 9 U .S . at 4 0 0 . W h ile a d e fe n d a n t’s c o m p e ten c e to w a iv e c o u n se l is n o d iffe re n t th a n c o m p e ten c e to s t and tr i al , “ther e is a ‘ hei ght ened’ s t andar d forpl eadi ng gui l tyand forw ai vi ng t he r i ghtt o couns el , buti ti s nota hei ght ened s t andar d of compet ence . ” Id. at 4 0 1 . T h e fo c u s o f

a c o m p e t e n c y i n q u i ry i s th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s m e n t a l c a p a c i ty; t he q uest i on i s w hetherhe h as the ab i l i tyt o un derst and the p roceedings. T he purpose of the “kno w i ng and vo l un t ary ” i nq uiry , by con tras t , is to d eter m i ne w hethert he defendantactual l ydoes under s t and the-23-

s i gni fi canc e and c ons equenc es of a pa r t i cul ardeci s i on and w hethert he d e c is io n is u n c o e rc e d . Id. at401 n. 12. T he C our thas r epea t edl yemphasi zed thatthi s dutyt o ens ur e thata w ai ver i s compet entand know i ng fal l s s quar el yon the tr i al cour tj udge. W hen a defe ndantappea r s w i t houtcouns el , a j udge has a s ol emn dut y“t o m ake a t hor ough i nqui r yand t o t ake a l l s t eps nece s s aryt o i ns ur e the ful l es tpr ot ect i on of t hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtateverys t age of the pr ocee di ngs . ” Von Mol tke v . G i l l i es , 332 U . S. 708, 722 ( 1948) . A t r i al j udge must“i nves t i gat e as l ong and as th o ro u g h lya s th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e c a se b e fo re h im d e m a n d ” to d isc h a rg e th is d u ty. Id . at723. T he courtcont i nued: T h e fa c t th a t an a c c u se d m a ytell [ th e c o u rt] th a t h e is in fo rm e d o f h is rig h t to c o u n se l an d d e sire s to w a iv e th is rig h t d o e s n o t au to m a tica lly end the j udg e’s responsi bi l i ty . T o be val i d s uch w ai verm us tbe made w ith an [1 ] ap p reh en sion o f th e n ature o f th e c h arg es, th e statuto ry o ffe n se s in c lu d e d w ith in th e m , [2 ] th e ra n g e o f a llo w a b le p u n ish m e n ts th e re u n d e r, [ 3 ] p o ss ib le d e fe n se s to th e c h a rg e s a n d c irc u m sta n c e s in m i t i gat i o n th e r e o f, a n d [ 4 ] a l l o th e rfa c t s e s s e n t i a l t o a b r oad u n d erstan d ing o f th e w h o le m att er. Id. at724. I n s hor t , t he col l oquym us tbe a “ penetr at i ng and compr ehens i ve exami nat i on of al l t he ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch s uch a [ w ai ver ] i s t ender ed. ” Id. ; se e Un itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 413 F. 3d 1253, 1279 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( s t at i ng that defe ndantm aypr ocee d pr o s e onl yaft ertr i al courtconduct s “a thor ough and compre hens i ve form al i nqui r y. . . on the r ecor d t o demonstr at e thatthe defendant-24-

i s aw ar e of the natur e of the cha r ges , the r ange of al l ow abl e puni s hm ent s and p o s s ib le d e fe n s e s , a n d is f u lly in fo rm e d o f

th e ri s k s o f

p ro c e e d in g p ro s e ” ). N evert hel es s , t he Supr eme C our thas m ade c l earthat“a c r i m i nal d e fe n d a n t’s a b ili tyto re p re se n t h im se lf h a s n o b e a rin g u p o n h is c o m p e ten c e to cho ose s el f- r epr es ent at i on. ” G odi nez , 5 0 9 U .S . at 4 0 0 . A s w e n o ted in Sm ith , “The com pet ence of a de fenda nt ’ s w ai verof the r i ghtt o couns el depends onl yon h is c o m p e ten c e in w a iv in g th a t rig h t, ho w e v e r, n o t o n w h e th e r h e is c o m p e ten t to r epr es enthi m s el f att r i al . ” 413 F. 3d at1279. W i t h t hes e pr i nci pl es , w e tur n t o the O C C A deci s i on, w hi ch hel d that M a yn a rd v o lu n ta ri ly w a iv e d h is ri g h t to c o u n s e l. a . O C CA R a tio n a le— C o n tra ry to Su p re m e C o u rt P re c e d e n t? I n u p h o l d i n g M a yn a r d ’ s wa i v e r , th e OC CA d i d n o tc i t e a n yfe d e r a l l a w, ci t i ng i ns t ead i t s ow n opi ni on i n B ra u n v . S ta te , 909 P. 2d 783, 788–89 ( O kl a. C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). T h is o m iss io n b yitse lf is n o t fa tal b e c a u se “ [ e ]v e n if a sta te c o u r tr e s o l v e s a c l a i m i n a s u mm a ryfa s h i o n wi th l i t t l e o rn o r e a s o n i n g , we o we d efere n ce to the stat e c o u rt ’s resu lt . . . . U n li k e f u ll d e n o v o rev iew , [o u r] in d e p e n d e n t re v iew , is d e fe re n tial b e c a u se w e c a n n o t g ra n t re lief u n les s th e sta te cour t ’ s r es ul ti s l egal l yorfac tual l yunr eas onabl e. ” P a in e v . Ma ss ie , 339 F. 3d 1 1 9 4 , 1 1 9 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). O urr evi ew of B r aun s ugges t s thatthe O C C A es s ent i al l yr equi r ed the tr i al cour t , as a mat t erof l aw , t o s at i s fythe tw o- parti nqui rys etfor th i n G odi nez :-25-

( 1) compet ence t o w ai ve couns el and ( 2) know i ng and i nt el l i gentw ai ver . U nder B r aun , t he t r i al court i s r equi r ed t o det erm i ne w hether the acc us ed h as t he capa ci t yt o m ake a val i d w ai verof couns el . T he courtm us tthen e x a m i n e th e d e fe n d a n t a n d d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e w a iv e r i s v o lu n ta ry, k n o w in g , an d in tellig e n t. In d o in g th is, th e trial ju d g e m u st c lea rly ex p lai n to the d efen d an t th e inh ere n t disad v an tage s in su ch a w aive r. 909 P. 2d at787. T hi s det erm i nat i on m us tbe made “fr om the t ot al ci r cumst ance s of the i ndi vi dual cas e i ncl udi ng backgr ound, exper i ence , and conduc tof the acc us ed. ” Id. a t 7 8 8 . W e fin d th a t th is ru le d o e s n o t “c o n tra d ict[ ] th e g o v e rn in g law se t fo rth in [Supr eme C our t ] cas es . ” Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . at 4 0 5 . T o th e c o n tra ry , itis in per fec tharm onyw i t h t he pr ece dentdi s cus s ed above . W e thus cannots aythatt he O C C A det erm i nat i on “w as contr aryt o . . . cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as d eterm ined b ythe S u p rem e C o u rto f th e U n it ed S tat es.” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ). b. O C CA R at i onal e— O bj ect i vel y Unr eas onabl e? Si nce B r aun i s n o t“ c o n t r a ryt o ” a p p l i c a b l e S u p r e me Co u r tp r e c e d e n t , we n e x t co n sid e r w h e th e r th e O C C A ’s a p p lica tio n o f th a t p re c e d e n t w a s “ o bjec tiv e ly u n re a so n a b le” u n d e r th e a u th o rityd isc u ss e d a b o v e . W e c o n c lu d e th a t itw a s n o t. W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the r ecor d of the tr i al court ’ s i ndepende nt w a iv e r h e a ri n g h e ld to p ro b e th e re a s o n s fo r M a yn a rd ’s d e s ir e to p ro c e e d p ro s e . A tt hathear i ng, t he tr i al cour tt ook pai ns t o ens ur e thatM aynar d knew w hathe w as c h arg ed w ith an d w h at kin d o f p en altyh e fac ed . Italso p rob ed M ay n ard ’s-26-

under s t andi ng of the pr ocedur al as pect s of the tr i al . M aynar d’ s appoi nt ed couns el a tten d e d th e h e a rin g a n d a ss iste d M a yn a rd . M a yn a rd tes tifie d a b o u t h is d e sire to p roc ee d p ro se an d w as q u esti o n ed b yh is co u n sel an d the p rose cu tor. M ay n ard asse rt ed a p lan to raise a v arietyo f d efen ses in clud ing insa n ity , inv o lun tary i nt oxi cat i on, and entr apment . M aynar d’ s couns el di d notas k foraddi t i onal m ent al t es t i ng att hatt i m e and a gr eed t o w i thdr aw as couns el atthe conc l us i on of t he hea r i ng. N eedl es s t o s ay , M aynar d di s pl ay ed an unr eal i s t i c and e ven fool i s h vi ew of hi s cas e and pos s i bl e defens es . H e w as m or e foc us ed on the def i ci enci es of the c o u rt a p p o in ted c o u n se l th a n o n th e m e rits o f h is d e fe n se . M o st o b se rv e rs w o u ld a g re e th e d e c isio n to p ro c e e d p ro se is in h e re n tlyirra tio n a l, bu t itis w e ll es t abl i s hed thata defendant ’ s t echni cal l egal know l edge i s “notr el evantt o an as s es s m entof hi s know i ng exer ci s e of the r i ghtt o defe nd hi m s el f. ” Far et ta v. C a lif o rn ia , 4 2 2 U . S . 8 0 6 , 8 3 6 (19 7 5 ); s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. B aker , 84 F. 3d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (“ T h e k e yq u e stio n is w h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t is compet entt o w ai ve hi s orherr i ghtt o couns el , notw hetherthe defendant pos s es s es l egal know l edge ori s otherw i s e compet entt o r epr es enthi m or h e rs e lf.” ). T hi s cas e i s es peci al l ydi ffi cul tbeca us e of M aynar d’ s hi s t or yof m ent al i l l ness. W e recogn i ze he w as i nst i tuti on al i zed at vari ou s point s i n these pr ocee di ngs and w as hamper ed bya var i etyof m ent al condi t i ons w hos e for ceT he di s s entnot es t hata tr i al courts houl d pr obe dee pert o det erm i ne 7 w hethera defendantunder s t ands t he i m pl i cat i ons of w ai verw hen the defendant s uffe r s fr om l i m i t ed ment al capa ci ty . W hi l e w e do notquarr el w i th that se n tim e n t, th e trial c o u rt’s c o llo q u yh e re w a s n o t o bjec tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le in d e te rm in in g th a t M a yn a rd u n d e rs to o d th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th e w a iv e r. Sm i th v. Mu lli n , 379 F. 3d 919 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) , i s i l l um i nat i ng. I n thatcas e, w e found that di m i ni s hed ment al capa ci t ydi d not , byi t s el f, i nval i dat e a Mi r anda w ai ver . E ven w her e the defendant ’ s “cogni t i ve abi l i t i es m ayhave mi rr or ed thos e of a t w el ve- y ear - ol d, t hi s fac tal one does notr enderhi s w ai veri neffect i ve. ” Id. at 933–34 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e l ooked t o the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t “w h ile h is m e m o ryw a s n o t w h o llyin tac t an d h is re sp o n se s to ans w er s came s l ow l y , he s t at ed hi s under s t andi ng of the Mi r anda r i ght s , he c o m p re h e n d e d th e q u e stio n s th e o ffice rs p re se n ted , an d h e p ro v id e d a n a c c u ra te des cr i pt i on of the cr i m es and cr i m e s cene . ” Id. a t 9 3 4 . -27- cannotbe pr eci s el ygauged f r om the col d r ecor d. M aynar d s uffe r ed thr ough a var i etyof m ent al i l l nes s es pr i ort o tr i al , and pos s i bl yaft erw ar ds . H e had r epr es ent ed hi m s el f i n l egal pr ocee di ng befor e, and mayhave ha d a r om ant i ci zed vi ew of hi s abi l i t yt o pr es enta defens e. Perhaps he bel i eved hi s i m pai r m ent defe nse w ou l d b e helped b ysel f-r epresent at i on . In anyeven t , w e hav e no per se rul e pr ohi bi t i ng defe ndant s , even w i th tr oubl i ng m ent al heal th hi s t or i es , fr om w a iv in g c o u n se l. 7 I n di s agr eei ng s ol el yw i t h w hetherM aynar d’ s w ai verw as know i ng and v o lu n tar y , the d iss e n t p o in ts to th e w a iv e r h e a rin g tra n sc rip t to ill u stra te M aynar d’ s confus i on overcert ai n as pect s of the tr i al pr oces s . B utM aynar d need notunder s t and al l of the i m pl i cat i ons of w ai veratt he begi nni ng of the w ai ver hear i ng, he onl yneeds t o under s t and them w hen the w ai veri s gr ant ed. Par tof the r eas on fort he more pr obi ng i nqui ryr equi r ed w hen a de fenda nts eeks t o pr ocee d-28-

pr o s e i s t o det erm i ne as pect s of the w ai verthatthe defendantm i ghtnot under s t and i ni t i al l ys o t hatt he i m pl i cat i ons of r epr es ent i ng one’ s s el f attr i al can b e c la ri fie d . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Turne r , 287 F. 3d 980, 984 ( 10th C i r . 2002) (“ . . . k n o w in g a n d in tellig e n t m e a n s o n lyth a t [ th e d e fe n d a n t] w a s re a so n a b ly i nform ed byt he courtof the haz ar ds of s el f- r epr es ent at i on and had s uffi ci ent under s t andi ng of thos e haz ar ds . ”) . T he contr adi ct i ons thatar i s e i n the ci t ed t r ans cr i ptar e the pr oductof the j udge det erm i ni ng w her e M aynar d m i ghtbe c o n f u se d a b o u t th e im p lica tio n s o f p ro c e e d in g p ro se a n d th e n w o rk in g to m iti g a te M aynar d’ s confus i on aboutt hos e i s s ues . T he ci t ed exc erpt s demonstr at e the j udge w al ki ng M aynar d t hr ough hi s m i s conce pt i ons of the tr i al pr oces s and id e n tify in g th e a sp e c ts o f w a iv e r th a t m ig h t co n flict w ith M a yn a rd ’s a p p ro a c h to t r i al . M aynar d does notneed t o under s t and the cons equenc es of w ai vi ng couns el w hen he makes t he i ni t i al deci s i on t o w ai ve, butthe courtm us tbe s at i s fi ed the defe ndantunder s t ands t he cons equenc es w hen the w ai veri s gr ant ed. T he di s s entpoi nt s t o M aynar d’ s bel i ef that“hi s att or neyi s cons pi r i ng a g a i n s th i m, t h a th e mu s tt e s t i f y , th a th e mu s tr e t a i n h i s a t t o rn e yt o q u e s t i o n h i m, t hathi s at t or neyw i l l hel p hi m pr epar e j ur yi ns truct i ons aft erbei ng u n c o n d i t i o n a l l yd i s c h a r g e d , a n d th a tth e c o u r to rth e p r o s e c u t o rwi l l a s s i s th i m” as evi dence of M aynar d’ s confus i on. T he fi r s tpoi ntw as m ade t o the j uryi n the c o mp e t e n c yh e a r i n g , wh i c h fo u n d h i m c o mp e t e n tt o s t a n d tr i a l . An d wh i l e we agr ee w i t h t he di s s entt hatM aynar d w as i ni t i al l yconfus ed aboutthe r ol e of-29-

adv i soryt ri al cou nsel , i tw as the tr i al cou rt ’s j ob t o suffi ci entl ycl ear up t ho se m is c o n c e p tio n s s o th a t M a yn a rd c o u ld d e c id e if h e s till w a n te d to p ro c e e d p ro s e . T h a t is w h yth e c o u rt w e n t to su c h e ffo rts to p o in t o u t in c o n sis ten c ies in M a yn a rd ’s te stim o n y . T h e tra n sc rip t as a w h o le s h o w s th a t th e c o u rt so u g h t to cl ar i fyt he mi s t akes i n M aynar d’ s bel i efs and then ens ur e M aynar d under s t ood th o se c lar ifica tio n s o f th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f

p ro c e e d in g p ro se b e fo re u lti m a tely g ran ti n g the w aive r. O urs t andar d of r evi ew i s obj ect i ve unr eas onabl enes s . I f thi s cas e had be en b e fo re u s in th e fir s t in s ta n c e , w e m ig h t w e ll h a v e re a c h e d a d iffe re n t c o n c lu s io n . B utw e ca nnots ayt hatM aynar d’ s w ai verof couns el and the O C C A ’ s aff i r m ance o f it a re in c o n s is te n t w ith th e s ta n d a rd s e s ta b lis h e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt . A c c o rd in g ly , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g th e h a b e a s p e tit io n o n th is gr ound. I I I . CO NC L US I ON B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e denyM aynar d’ s cl ai m forhabea s r el i ef a nd A F F IR M t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s defe rence t o the st at e cou rtproceed i ng s.M aynar d w as deemed i ncompet entt o s t and tr i al i n a s epar at e ca s e i n 1988 1 and w as confi ned i n a s t at e hos pi t al fort w o y ear s . W hi l e unders t at e ca r e he w as d iag n o se d w ith o rg a n ic b ra in sy n d ro m e , m ild to m o d e ra te d e m e n tia, a n d m ild m ent al r et ar dat i on, havi ng an I . Q . of 59. 05- 5063, M aynar d v. B oone LU CE RO , J., c o n c u rrin g in p a rt, d iss e n tin g in p a rt. I jo in m yre sp e c ted c o llea g u e s in a ll b u t P a rt III.B .2 o f th e m ajo rity o p in io n . A lth o u g h th e ya d o p t th e c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd , an d a p tlyn o te th a t th is i s a c l o s e ma t t e r , I d i s a g r e e wi t h t h e ma j o r i ty ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a tt h e Ok l a h o ma c o u r t s r e a s o n a b l y a p p l i e d fe d e r a l l a w i n fi n d i n g t h a tM a yn a r d k n o w i n g l y, in te llig e n tly, a n d v o lu n ta ri ly w a iv e d h is ri g h t to c o u n s e l. O n th a t is s u e , I re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t. A defe ndant ’ s deci s i on t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o couns el m us tnotonl ybe c ompe t e nt , bu ta l s o k no w i ng a nd vo l un t a ry . Se e G od i ne z v. M or a n, 50 9 U. S. 3 8 9 , 4 0 0 -01 & n . 1 2 (19 9 3 ). A tr ial co u rtca n assu re it self tha t “an ac cu sed ’s p r o fe s s e d wa i v e ro f

c o u n s e l i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g l ya n d wi s e l yma d e o n l yf r o m a p e n e tr a tin g a n d c o m p re h e n s iv e e x a m in a tio n o f a ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” o f th e c a s e . V on M ol t ke v. G i l l i es , 332 U . S. 708, 724 ( 1948) . W hen a de fenda nthas l i m i t ed m e n tal c a p a c ity , as d o e s M a yn a rd , a c o u rt m a yn e e d to tak e a d d iti o n a l ste p s to 1 ens ur e the defendanthas a “r at i onal as w el l as fac tual under s t andi ng” of the cons equenc es of hi s w ai ver . See D us kyv. U ni t ed St at es , 362 U . S. 402, 402 (19 6 0 ).- 2-

T h e tra n sc rip t o f

th e w a iv e r o f

c o u n se l h e a rin g c lea rlyd e m o n stra tes th a t, des pi t e the court ’ s r epea t ed att empt s atexpl anat i on, M aynar d di d notunder s t and t he cons equenc es of hi s w ai ver . I exce rptthattr ans cr i ptats om e l ength t o s how t he d epth of M aynard’s m i sapprehen si on of h i s r i gh t s: Q . H ave y ou s een y ourel ect i on t o pr ocee d pr o s e thaty ou s i gned? A . Y es , I r ead i t , y eah. Q . W el l , w hyi s i tt hati n par agr aph thr ee y ou s ayy ou w ant ed [y our a p p o in ted c o u n se l] M r. S tan d in g B e a r to sta n d b ya n d th e n y o u tell m e t o d a y yo u d o n ’ tw a n th i m t o s t a n d b y? A . B e c a u se th a t’s th a t m a n s [ sic ] c o n sp ira c yrig h t th e re a n d h is c o n s p i r a c yt o g e tme u p s e twh e r e th e j u ryc a n s e e , l i k e I d i d l a s tt i me I w a s o v e r th e re in C o u rt. Q . D o y ou s ayt hat[the pr os ecut or ] M r . Stuartand M r . St andi ng B earar e cons pi r i ng t o ups ety ou i n the pr es ence of the j uryi n or der t o caus e pr ej udi ce a gai ns ty ou? A . Y es. Q . I s t hatw hyorone of the r eas ons w hyy ou do notw antt o have M r . S t a n d i n g Be a ri n t h e c o u r tr o o m? A. Th a ti s t h e r e a s o n , o n e o f th e m. [Tr. at13]- 3-

Q . D o y ou i nt end t o t es t i fydur i ng the cour s e of thi s tr i al y our s el f? A. Ye a h , I s h o u l d , y o u k n o w. Q. We l l , t h a t ’ s u p t o y o u , i f th e Co u r ta l l o ws y o u t o b e y o u ro wn a tto rn e yy o u a re g o in g to m a k e th e se d e c isio n s, n o b o d yis g o in g to m ak e the m fo r y o u . D o y o u u n d erstan d the C o u rt --- A . I kn o w I ha v e to g ive m ytest im o n yan d n o b o d y --- Q . D o y ou under s t and the C our tcannothel p y ou i n thi s tr i al i f y ou pr ocee d pr o s e? A . I k n o w th a t. [Tr. at27] Q . If y o u ch o o se to test ifyin this ca se, M r. M ay n ard , an d y o u d o n ’t hav e an att orneyw ho i s going t o ask y ou the q uest i on s? A. I ’ m j u s tg o i n g t o - - - I a i n ’ tg o i n g t o t a k e th e s t a n d , y o u k n o w. Q . Y o u ju st s a id th a t y o u w e re , n o w y o u ’re n o t? A . N o. Q . O k ay . If y o u w ere ---- 4-

A . B e c a u se I k n o w , y o u k n o w , M r. S tan d in g B e a r h a s th ro w e d m e in to tal c o n f

u sio n in th e se c o u rtro o m s lik e th e w ro n g w itn e ss list an d a ll th a t. Q . D o y ou under s t and thaty ou have no dutyt o t es t i fyi n a cr i m i nal c a se a s a D e fe n d a n t? A . Y es. Q . D o y o u u n d e rsta n d y o u h a v e e v e ryrig h t in th e w o rld to d o so if t hat ’ s y ourdeci s i on ory ouratt or ney s [s i c] deci s i on i f y ou have one . A . Y eah. Q. S o i f y o u d o n ’ th a v e a n a t t o rn e ya n d y o u wi s h t o t e s t i f ymy qu est i on i s, w ho i s going t o ask y ou the q uest i on s? A . W el l I ’ m goi ng t o have t o have hi m her e bec aus e I ’ ve gott o t ake t he w i t nes s s t and. Q. No w, y o u h a v e v a c i l l a t e d a l i t t l e b i t , M r . M a yn a r d . Yo u t o l d me att he out s ett haty ou di dn’ tw anthi m i n her e. A . W ell , I do n ’tev en w an t him in the re, y o u g u y s--- hey , I ca n ’t t ake the w i t nes s s t and and he ’ s s abot agi ng m ydefe ns e and I ’ ve got hi m befor e the B arA s s oci at i on r i ghtnow and hi m t oo! Q . A r e y ou j us tgett i ng frus tr at ed atthi s t i m e, M r . M aynar d? A . Y es, y o u k n o w , I ain’t go ing to tak e the w itn ess s tand , let ’s pr ocee d on.- 5-

Q . W ell , this i s a sim p le l ittl e h ea ri n g co m p are d to the tr ial --- A . I know , I have b een thr ou gh tri al s. Q . I tm i ght[t ake] t w o orthr ee da y s , do y ou thi nk y ou m i ghtget frus t r at ed dur i ng t hatt i m e? A . N o. Q. Bu ty o u a r e g e t t i n g f ru s tr a t e d n o w? A . Y eah. Q . O kay , w el l , y ou under s t and thaty ou can e i therchoos e t o t es t i fy o rn o tt e s t i f

y i f yo u a r e yo u ro w n a t t o rn e y. A . T h a t’s rig h t. Q . A nd i f y ou choos e t o t es t i fyand y ou ar e y ourow n at t or neyand M r . St andi ng B eari s n’ ther e t o as k y ou ques t i ons y ou w i l l j us thave t o t es t i fyi n narr at i ve form , getup and t el l a s t or y . D o y ou under s t and the pi t fal l s i n doi ng thatM r . M aynar d? A . Y eah. [Tr. at29- 30] Q . D o y o u w ish to h a v e h im --- n o w , y o u to ld m e y o u d o n ’t w a n t h im i n t he court r oom dur i ng t hi s tr i al and that ’ s y ours t at ementt o m e. A . Y eah.- 6-

Q . Y ou don’ tw anthi m as s t andbycouns el t o as s i s ty ou. D o y ou w anthi m t o as s i s ty ou i n t he pr epar at i on of j ur yi ns truct i ons once t h i s c a s e , a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d t o th e j u ry? A . Y eah. Q . D o y o u w an t him --- A . Y e a h , I w a n t th a t. Q . - - - i n t h a tc a p a c i t y? A . Y eah. Q . A l l r i ght , do y ou under s t and thati f y ou deci de t o r epr es ent y o u rse lf d o y o u re q u e st th a t M r. S tan d in g B e a r b e to tallya n d w h o lly di s char ged fr om anyt ype of f ur therr epr es ent at i on of y ou ei theras y o u r a d v o c a te o r a d v iso r, in o th e r w o rd s, th a t h e b e u n c o n d iti o n a lly di s char ged? A . Y eah. Q . Y ou do w anthi m uncondi t i onal l ydi s char ged? A . Y eah. Q. Do y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c ywi th wh a ty o u j u s tt o l d me that y o u w an t him to w o rk o n y o u r i n stru cti o n s--- A . Y ourH onor , I need s om ebodyt o hel p m e and he ai n’ tnever h e lp e d m e d o n o th in g . I m e a n I c a n ’t g e t h im , I c a n ’t b e g h im , I don’ tcar e w hatI do, m an, I s entpeopl e dow n ther e, I can’ tget- 7-

n o th in g , I h a v e h a d ja ile rs a s k h im , I c a n ’t g e t h im o v e r t o th a t ja il. I have a s ked y ou t o gethi m overther e. Q . M r. M ay n ard , d o y o u u n d erstan d --- A . W hyw oul d he come overher e and he l p m e w hen he a i n’ thel ped m e i n seven m on t hs? Q . D o y o u u n d erstan d the in co n sist en cyin o n e ti m e y o u told m e--- A . J us tt el l hi m I don’ tw anthi m , per i od, y ou know , w e’ l l j us tgo w ith th e in stru c tio n s th e w a yit i s, y o u k n o w . I d o n ’t w a n t h im around m e, m an, becau se he ai n’tbeen around m e i n seven m on ths. Q . W el l , y ou have s ai d t hr ee di ffe r entthi ngs t o the C our tnow and I d o n ’t k n o w w h ich to a c c e p t. A . N o. Q . N o w h a t? A . I don’tw ant hi m i n the j uryi nst ruct i on s or not hing el se becau se he ain’ tseen m e i n seven m on ths. Q . Y ou w i s h t o have hi m t ot al l ydi s char ged and y ou w antno a ss ista n c e f

ro m h im in a n yfo rm , is th a t y o u r sta tem e n t? A . Y eah. Q . Shoul d y ou det erm i ne thatand r eques tthatM r . St andi ng B earbe d isc h a rg e d f

ro m re p re se n tin g y o u in C o u rt w o u ld y o u lik e fo r h im to- 8-

as s i s ty ou i n get t i ng y ourw i tnes s es t o C our ton t i m e s o y ou can pr es enty ourdefe ns e? A . I w antt he w i t nes s l i s tthatI - - - notthe one thathe s ubm i t t ed dow n her e, I w antt he ones thatw e ar gued M ar ch the 11th her e, n o b o d yw a n ts th a t w itn e ss list b ro u g h t in h e re . I w a n t th e tru th b ro u g h t o u t. Q . W el l , w e do t oo , M r. M aynard. B ut the q uest i on i s do y ou w i sh forM r . St andi ng B eart o as s i s ty ou i n get t i ng the w i tnes s es t o the C our tw hen y ou puton y ourdefe ns e i n thi s cas e i f y ou r epr es ent y our s el f? A . S o m eb o d yh as g o t t o b ec au se I--- Q . W el l , now , y ou t ol d m e y ou don’ tw anthi m foranythi ng and now y o u --- A . W el l , how am I goi ng t o do i toveri n thatj ai l ! L etm e outof her e on bond, y ou s tuck a hundr ed and f i ftythous and dol l arbond on m e. L etm e get outso I can go get m yow n w i tnesses. Q . T hat ’ s t he r eas on I ’ m as ki ng the ques t i on, M r . M aynar d. A . Y eah, I need s om ebody . H ow am I goi ng t o do i toveri n that little c e ll.- 9-

Q . A l l r i ght , y ou w antM r . St andi ng B earnott o as s i s ty ou dur i ng the t r i al t o t he j ur y . Y ou don’ tw anthi m t o hel p y ou pr epar e the instruction s in this ca se b u t y o u w o u ld li k e to u ti li ze h is service s--- A . I w antt o s ubm i thi s i ns truct i ons , y eah. Q . B u t y o u w o u ld lik e to u til ize th e se rv ice s o f M r. S tan d in g B e a r in m a k in g a rra n g e m e n ts to se e th a t y o u r w itn e ss e s a re h e re tim e ly d u rin g th e trial? A . W el l , how aboutm e s ubm i t t i ng thaty ou getthem her e on t i m e. Q . M r . M aynar d, I t ol d y ou the C our tcannothel p y ou i n thi s cas e. A . W el l , y ou can he l p m e getm yw i tnes s es her e, the r i ghtw i tnes s es t oo. Q . N o , the C o u rtca n n o t be a n ad v o ca te i n a jurytr ial --- A . H o w a m I g o in g to d o it o v e r in th a t jail? Q . T h at’s w h yI’m ask ing , w o u ld y o u li k e fo r M r. --- A . Y e a h , I g o tt o h a v e s o m e b o d y, h i m o ryo u o rs o m e b o d y. Q . M r . Stuar tcan’ thel p y ou i n thi s cas e [be caus e] he r epr es ent s the St at e, does n’ the? A . W el l , y ou guy s have thr ow n m e ata t ot al di s advant age be caus e I can’ ts ubpoena w i t nes s es , I gi ve a w i tnes s l i s toutand I getthe w ro n g o n e su b m itt e d to th e C o u rt.- 10-

Q . T her e i s M r . St andi ng B earthen thaty ou s ayatthi s t i m e y ou do w i s h t hathe nots t ayi n t he courtr oom t o as s i s ty ou, he nothel p y ou w ith instruction s b u t th at he assist y o u in se eing that w itn esse s are h ere --- A . I gott o h ave som ebo dyt o g etm yw i tnesses. Q . A ty ourr eques tt hen. A . Y es. Q . A l l r i ght , I under s t and w haty ou s ai d, I thi nk. [Tr. at43- 47]

A gai n and aga i n M aynar d di s pl ay s confus i on, s eemi ng t o bel i eve al t ernat i vel yt hathi s att or neyi s cons pi r i ng agai ns thi m , thathe mustt es t i fy , that h e m u st r etain h is at torn eyto q u esti o n h im , that h is at torn eyw il l help h im p rep are j ur yi ns t ruct i ons aft erbei ng uncondi t i onal l ydi s char ged, and thatthe courtorthe p ro s e c u to r w ill a s s is t h im . B ase d o n this reco rd, th e p an el m ajorityd ec ides that the tri al co u rt ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t M a yn a rd k n o w in g ly , inte lli g e n tly , an d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e d h is rig h t to c o u n se l w a s re a so n a b le. M yc o llea g u e s a d v a n c e se v e ra l b a se s fo r th e ir c o n c lu sio n : th e trial c o u rt’s r e p e a ted a ttem p ts to e x p lain th e p ro c e d u ra l as p e c ts of the tr i al , t he ac t i ons of M aynar d’ s appoi nt ed couns el , M aynar d’ s di s cus s i on ofA nyfai rr eadi ng of M aynar d’ s pl anned de fens es onl ybol s t er s t he 2 concl us i on t hathe w as m ent al l yi l l . W hatt he maj or i tychar act er i zes as defe ns es bas ed on i ns ani t y , i nvol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on, and entr apmentar e extr act ed fr om t he fol l ow i ng: A ft ert he col l oquyquot ed atl ength above, M aynar d expl ai ned t o t he cour tt hathe i nt ended t o pr ove thathi s pr evi ous l aw y er s cons pi r ed w i th s ever al i ndi vi dual s , i ncl udi ng m ember s of the mafi a, t o have hi m i l l egal l yr el eas ed fr om pr i s on, atw hi ch t i m e he w as drugged aga i ns thi s w i l l and tr i cked i nt o s hoot i ng t h e v i c t i m. A n ex cerptfrom t hat transcr i pt fol l ow s: M aynar d: Y ou s ee, m ydefe ns e i s di ffe r ent . M i ne i s t hi s drug deal and cons pi r acyt hatt heycons pi r ed t o s etm e up, y ou know , t heygot m e r el eas ed outof j ai l forthe s ol e purpos e of ha vi ng thi s B r enda B ut l ers etm e up, t hati s m ycons pi r acydefe ns e.

. . . Th e Co u r t : Co n s p i r a c ya mo n g o rb e twe e n wh o m? A . [N am ed ind ividu als] an d so m e m afia gu y s--- Q . M afi a, w hatm afi a?

. . . Q . W here are the m afi a gu y s? A . T heyar e up ther e atG r and Lake. Q . O h, on e of the G rand L ake m afi a bo y s? A . Y eah.

. . . Q . W hatdoes [the pr opos ed w i tnes s ] know aboutt hi s cas e? A . W el l , s he know s t hats he w as s l i ppi ng chemi cal s i n m e for mo n t h s d r i v i n g me c r a z y , y o u k n o w, a n d t h e s e c h a r g e s s h e p u to n me th a t w a s th e so le p u rp o se o f it. [Tr. at64- 66]

- 11- his planned defe nses, and his exp res sed desi re t o p roceed p ro se. N on e of these 2 fac t or s , how ever , bearon w hetherM aynar d actual l yunder s t ood the cons equenc es of hi s w ai ver . See G odi nez, 509 U . S. at401 n. 12 ( “The purpos e of the ‘ know i ng and vol unt ary ’ i nqui r y. . . i s t o det erm i ne w hethert he defendantactual l ydoes u n d erstan d the s ign ifi ca n ce an d co n seq u en ce s o f a p arti cu lar de cisi o n . ”).- 12-

A lth o u g h th e sta n d a rd g o v e rn in g o u r re v iew o f th is c laim is h ig h ly defe r ent i al , i ti s pl ai n t hatO kl ahoma al l ow ed a ment al l yi l l m an t o r epr es ent hi m s el f. I w oul d hol d t hatt hi s deci s i on w as “an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, clea rl yestab li sh ed F ed era l l aw . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ).